🔥 🔥 Arizona AUDIT **Official Thread** 🔥 🔥

Page 31 of 57 FirstFirst ... 2127282930313233343541 ... LastLast
Results 451 to 465 of 846
  1. #451
    Registered User
    bigtime916's Avatar


    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    In the Basement
    Age
    47
    Posts
    6,521

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,196
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,114
    Thanked in
    1,297 Posts
    Rep Points
    2147483647


  2. #452
    Registered User
    bigtime916's Avatar


    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    In the Basement
    Age
    47
    Posts
    6,521

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,196
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,114
    Thanked in
    1,297 Posts
    Rep Points
    2147483647


  3. #453
    ASF MVP
    SUPER MOD
    Multislacking's Avatar


    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    16,417

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    17,116
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    18,393
    Thanked in
    9,107 Posts
    Rep Points
    2147483647

    NEW - Suspicious "white powder" sent to Arizona senate president Karen Fann, who authorized the 2020 ballot audit, in a mailed letter. The Department of Public Safety and its Hazmat team was alerted (via The Epoch Times and Newsweek)

  4. #454
    Registered User
    GJ503's Avatar


    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Sacramento California
    Posts
    1,084

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    848
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    691
    Thanked in
    429 Posts
    Rep Points
    1740322984

    Quote Originally Posted by kilsong View Post
    Very boring, old, repetitive recyled make believe theories.
    Only Trump SUPPORTERS do what u guys are doing.
    It's sad.
    Your not mad the election was "stolen", you butt hurt cuz Biden won.
    Give it up.
    What are u guys gonna say when this election recount proves NOTHING?
    All the courts in the land, including the Supreme Court have denied these claims. There have been recounts and audits. Like I've said, election fraud is an easy crime to prove because there is a literal paper trail. There was not a huge 99 to 1 voter dump for Biden, ballots were dropped off because that is how they get there from drop boxes. Trump lost because he was an asshole and not as popular as Biden. If he had an ounce of humility he may have actually won.

  5. #455
    Registered User
    Necron_99's Avatar


    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    1,228

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    881
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,441
    Thanked in
    751 Posts
    Rep Points
    30562214

    Quote Originally Posted by GJ503 View Post
    All the courts in the land, including the Supreme Court have denied these claims. There have been recounts and audits. Like I've said, election fraud is an easy crime to prove because there is a literal paper trail. There was not a huge 99 to 1 voter dump for Biden, ballots were dropped off because that is how they get there from drop boxes. Trump lost because he was an asshole and not as popular as Biden. If he had an ounce of humility he may have actually won.
    That first sentence demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how the court system works and of what actually happened. NOT ONE SINGLE CASE WAS EXAMINED BY THE COURTS. Not one. All cases were dismissed on procedural grounds and none of them ever progressed to the point where any evidence was introduced never mind examined. Not a single one. The cases themselves were dismissed, not the claims made by the plaintiffs. There is a world of difference between those two elements. The case being dismissed on procedural grounds has no bearing what-so-ever on the claims and whether those claims are legitimate or not. Throughout the past few months I've read news stories several times that make the claim that when dismissing the case the court stated its opinion of the case. If indeed this happened, within the legal profession, this is highly improper. The courts would not be able to make a determination of the legitimacy of the claims until they examined evidence. Since not a single case ever proceeded to the point where evidence was introduced, there is no possible way for the court to decide the legitimacy of the claim.

    I've posted about this previously in this thread.

    http://www.anabolicsteroidforums.com...=1#post1869427

  6. #456
    Registered User


    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,609

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    541
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    798
    Thanked in
    471 Posts
    Rep Points
    2147483647

    Quote Originally Posted by GJ503 View Post
    All the courts in the land, including the Supreme Court have denied these claims. There have been recounts and audits. Like I've said, election fraud is an easy crime to prove because there is a literal paper trail. There was not a huge 99 to 1 voter dump for Biden, ballots were dropped off because that is how they get there from drop boxes. Trump lost because he was an asshole and not as popular as Biden. If he had an ounce of humility he may have actually won.
    Imagine Trump was reelected by these massive vote dumps. Do you thing democrats would just sit down and shut the fuck up about it?

  7. #457
    Registered User
    Altenator_6's Avatar


    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    Louisiana / Texas
    Posts
    419

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    854
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    374
    Thanked in
    227 Posts
    Rep Points
    5738256

    Quote Originally Posted by Necron_99 View Post
    That first sentence demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how the court system works and of what actually happened. NOT ONE SINGLE CASE WAS EXAMINED BY THE COURTS. Not one. All cases were dismissed on procedural grounds and none of them ever progressed to the point where any evidence was introduced never mind examined. Not a single one. The cases themselves were dismissed, not the claims made by the plaintiffs. There is a world of difference between those two elements. The case being dismissed on procedural grounds has no bearing what-so-ever on the claims and whether those claims are legitimate or not. Throughout the past few months I've read news stories several times that make the claim that when dismissing the case the court stated its opinion of the case. If indeed this happened, within the legal profession, this is highly improper. The courts would not be able to make a determination of the legitimacy of the claims until they examined evidence. Since not a single case ever proceeded to the point where evidence was introduced, there is no possible way for the court to decide the legitimacy of the claim.
    Perfectly explained Necron! Thank you sir!

  8. #458
    Super Moderator
    SUPER MOD
    GYMnTONIC's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    8,451

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    10,400
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    10,068
    Thanked in
    4,434 Posts
    Rep Points
    2147483647

    Quote Originally Posted by bigtime916 View Post
    Josh is my personal friend

    That's his post.

    Funny thing bc the Dems on our board didn't take me.serious or any of this for that matter.

    I told them I had some inside info and they laughed.

    I don't think they will be laughing soon.

  9. #459
    Registered User
    Necron_99's Avatar


    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    1,228

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    881
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,441
    Thanked in
    751 Posts
    Rep Points
    30562214

    Quote Originally Posted by GYMnTONIC View Post
    Josh is my personal friend

    That's his post.

    Funny thing bc the Dems on our board didn't take me.serious or any of this for that matter.

    I told them I had some inside info and they laughed.

    I don't think they will be laughing soon.
    You're brainwashed and part of a cult.

    https://twitter.com/i/status/1395881774425718792

  10. #460
    Registered User
    GJ503's Avatar


    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Sacramento California
    Posts
    1,084

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    848
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    691
    Thanked in
    429 Posts
    Rep Points
    1740322984

    Quote Originally Posted by Necron_99 View Post
    That first sentence demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how the court system works and of what actually happened. NOT ONE SINGLE CASE WAS EXAMINED BY THE COURTS. Not one. All cases were dismissed on procedural grounds and none of them ever progressed to the point where any evidence was introduced never mind examined. Not a single one. The cases themselves were dismissed, not the claims made by the plaintiffs. There is a world of difference between those two elements. The case being dismissed on procedural grounds has no bearing what-so-ever on the claims and whether those claims are legitimate or not. Throughout the past few months I've read news stories several times that make the claim that when dismissing the case the court stated its opinion of the case. If indeed this happened, within the legal profession, this is highly improper. The courts would not be able to make a determination of the legitimacy of the claims until they examined evidence. Since not a single case ever proceeded to the point where evidence was introduced, there is no possible way for the court to decide the legitimacy of the claim.

    Wrong. Contrary to the BS the right is feeding you courts have held evidentiary hearings and ruled on the merits in many of these cases. These are by definition verdicts.

    https://casetext.com/case/wis-voters...ding&type=case

    https://casetext.com/case/trump-v-bi...ding&type=case

    Ά3 We conclude the Campaign is not entitled to the relief it seeks. The challenge to the indefinitely confined voter ballots is meritless on its face, and the other three categories of ballots challenged fail under the doctrine of laches.

    https://casetext.com/case/trump-v-wi...type=case&jxs=

    "After an evidentiary hearing, the district court rejected the President's claims on the merits and entered judgment for the Commission and other defendants. The Electors Clause, the court determined, addressed the "Manner"—the "approach, form, method, or mode"—by which Wisconsin appointed its electors. For Wisconsin, that meant only by "general ballot at the general election," WIS. STAT. § 8.25(1), with the court further observing that any mistakes in administering the election did not change that the electors were appointed by general election."

    https://casetext.com/case/feehan-v-wis-elections-commn-4?q=%22voter%20fraud%22&p=1&tab=keyword&sort=date-descending&type=case&jxs=

    https://casetext.com/case/johnson-v-...type=case&jxs=

    https://casetext.com/case/bowyer-v-d...type=case&jxs=

    This is from Nevada where my buddy swears voter fraud occurred. He knows because he lives there.

    https://casetext.com/case/law-v-whit...type=case&jxs=

    Having reviewed the full evidentiary record submitted by Contestants and Defendants, and having considered, without limitation, all evidence submitted to the Court as well as the parties' written and oral arguments, the Court makes the following findings of fact:

    Becker v. Gloria, No. A-20-824878-W, slip op. at 4 (Nev. 8th Jud. Dist. Ct. Dec. 2, 2020) ("The Court finds that Plaintiff has offered no evidence sufficient to find any error on the part of either Clark County or Registrar Gloria that would warrant granting the relief sought here."

    Rodimer v. Gloria, No. A-20-825130-W, slip op. at 4 (Nev. 8th Jud. Dist. Ct. Nov. 25, 2020); Marchant v. Gloria, No. A-20-824878-W, slip op. at 4 (Nev. 8th Jud. Dist. Ct. Nov. 23, 2020).

    72. Contestants allege that fraud occurred at multiple points in the voting process in Nevada in rates that exceed the margin of victory in the presidential race, Based on Dr. Herron's analysis, the Court finds there is no evidence that voter fraud rates associated with mail voting are systematically higher than voter fraud rates associated with other forms of voting. See Herron Dep. 17:7-13; Herron Decl. 17.
    73. Based on Dr. Herron's analysis, the Court finds there is no evidence that voter fraud rates associated with mail voting are systematically higher than voter fraud rates associated with other forms of voting. See Herron Dep. 17:7-13; Herron Decl. 17.
    74. After examining voter turnout in Nevada and constructing a database of voter fraud instances in the State from 2012 to 2020, Dr. Herron concluded that out of 5,143,652 ballots cast in general and primary elections during that timeframe (not including the 2020 General Election), the illegal vote rate totaled at most only 0.00054 percent. Herron Dep. 22:19-24:7; Herron Decl. 18-21.


    http://www.anabolicsteroidforums.com...=1#post1869427
    You are wrong. There were evidentiary hearings in many of the cases, and I have quoted those in a previous post as well.
    https://casetext.com/case/trump-v-se...ding&type=case
    https://casetext.com/case/donald-j-t...ding&type=case
    "After a careful review of the parties' submissions and the extensive evidentiary record, the Court will enter judgment in favor of Defendants"

    https://casetext.com/case/feehan-v-w...ding&type=case
    https://casetext.com/search?q=%22Pre...ding&type=case
    https://casetext.com/case/bowyer-v-d...ding&type=case

  11. #461
    ASF MVP
    SUPER MOD
    Multislacking's Avatar


    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    16,417

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    17,116
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    18,393
    Thanked in
    9,107 Posts
    Rep Points
    2147483647

    ///
    Attached Images Attached Images

  12. #462
    Community Veteran
    ADMINISTRATOR
    heavyiron's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    10,665

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,425
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,986
    Thanked in
    1,937 Posts
    Rep Points
    2147483647

    2020 US Presidential Election Related Lawsuits

    http://wiseenergy.org/Energy/Electio...tion_Cases.htm

    All posts are for entertainment and may contain fiction. Consult a medical doctor before using any medications or supplements. Heavyiron does not advocate any illegal activity.
    Read the Rules Please

  13. #463
    Registered User
    Necron_99's Avatar


    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    1,228

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    881
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,441
    Thanked in
    751 Posts
    Rep Points
    30562214

    Quote Originally Posted by GJ503 View Post
    You are wrong. There were evidentiary hearings in many of the cases, and I have quoted those in a previous post as well.
    https://casetext.com/case/trump-v-se...ding&type=case
    https://casetext.com/case/donald-j-t...ding&type=case
    "After a careful review of the parties' submissions and the extensive evidentiary record, the Court will enter judgment in favor of Defendants"

    https://casetext.com/case/feehan-v-w...ding&type=case
    https://casetext.com/search?q=%22Pre...ding&type=case
    https://casetext.com/case/bowyer-v-d...ding&type=case
    Sigh.

    Did you read those cases or did you just read what someone wrote about those cases? I'm betting that you thought a google search would be helpful and just copied and pasted what google told you were results supporting your search. I actually read them, which I often do because I love reading primary source material, not someone's opinion of primary source material. There is an enormous difference between reading headlines and reading source materials.

    These cases do not support your claim.

    First case, Wis. Voters All. v. Pence. Dismissed on procedural grounds for lack of "subject-matter and personal jurisdiction."

    No mention of evidence or an evidentiary hearing. None. However, as I have stated before, often Plaintiffs will list evidence "that will be produced" in an initial pleading. In this case, the judge admonished the Plaintiffs for doing so. "To say that Plaintiffs' 116-page Complaint, replete with 310 footnotes, is prolix would be a gross understatement." Why did he admonish the Plaintiffs? Because, as I have stated before, evidence doesn't belong in an initial pleading nor was it considered in this case.

    Second case, Trump v. Biden This hearing was on a brief filed on four issues. The first issue challenged the legality of "indefinitely confined" ballots. This challenge was shot down because those ballots fell within the scope of Wisconsin statutory law. Even though the majority ruled against the Plaintiffs in this issue, the court stated that there was a problem with how it was being conducted and concluded that this would no doubt be an issue for future elections. The remaining 3 issues were, were also on the legalities of, in-person absentee ballots, the claim that absentee ballot certifications improperly added witness information and therefore should be discounted, and the legality of drop boxes. All three of these issues were dismissed on the legal principle of laches. This legal principle is based on the concept that, "Equity aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights." In other words, the courts hid behind the concept that this case was not timely filed (the impropriety of this is discussed in the dissenting opinions). The court decided that 44 days after the election was too late to file the case.

    This case was on the legality of the Wisconsin laws, not on the evidence of voter fraud. Once again, this cases did not discuss evidence of voter fraud or conduct an evidentiary hearing.

    Third case, Trump v. Wis. Elections Comm'n Once again, this is a case based on procedures and legalities of Wisconsin election law with no mention of the evidence of voter fraud. None. And once again, the court hid behind the principle of laches. "We reach this conclusion in no small part because of the President's delay in bringing the challenges to Wisconsin law that provide the foundation for the alleged constitutional violation. Even apart from the delay, the claims fail under the Electors Clause." ". . .all we need to say is that, even on a broad reading of the Electors Clause, Wisconsin lawfully appointed its electors in the manner directed by its Legislature."

    This case was based on the structure and scheme under which Wisconsin elections are conducted. No mention of the evidence of voter fraud. Zero.

    With regard to the Nevada case, the evidence was discounted as not meeting the legal standard to be admitted as evidence. It was judged as inadmissible by legal definition - PROCEDURAL GROUNDS -not whether or not it was true or untrue.

    120. As reflected herein, the Court finds that the expert testimony provided by the Contestants was of little to no value. The Court did not exclude consideration of this evidence, which it could have, but gave it very little weight.

    Yet, that's exactly what the Court did as evidenced by the repeated use of the phrase, "The record does not support. . ." All affiants' testimony was discounted as heresay and not allowed due to the inability to cross-examine the witnesses (aka procedural grounds), and then the Court ruled that no evidence existed (by repeatedly stating that, "The record does not support. . ."). How convenient. However, this could have been avoided by making the affiants available for deposition. By doing this, the affiants could be cross examined and their testimony direct and thus, not heresay.

    I did spot one very serious blunder on behalf of the Plaintiffs in this case. The judge gave them until November 25 to return a witness list for depositions and list of evidence. Considering that the case was filed on November 17, at the very least, this was not much time. The deposition list wasn't filed until November 27. Judges really frown on those who do not meet their deadlines. This is the time and place for the expert testimony that Rudy Guilliani put forth in the Senate hearings and it should have been used here. It wasn't. I believe this case would have had a very different outcome if that had been done. Due to the serious blunders in this case, one can easily conclude that this case looks like the work of a legal amateur. However, the point is that once again the ruling was against the Plaintiffs on procedural grounds, not the merits of the evidence.

    Need I go on?

  14. #464
    Registered User
    GJ503's Avatar


    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Sacramento California
    Posts
    1,084

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    848
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    691
    Thanked in
    429 Posts
    Rep Points
    1740322984

    Quote Originally Posted by Necron_99 View Post
    Sigh.

    Did you read those cases or did you just read what someone wrote about those cases? I'm betting that you thought a google search would be helpful and just copied and pasted what google told you were results supporting your search. I actually read them, which I often do because I love reading primary source material, not someone's opinion of primary source material. There is an enormous difference between reading headlines and reading source materials.

    These cases do not support your claim.

    First case, Wis. Voters All. v. Pence. Dismissed on procedural grounds for lack of "subject-matter and personal jurisdiction."

    No mention of evidence or an evidentiary hearing. None. However, as I have stated before, often Plaintiffs will list evidence "that will be produced" in an initial pleading. In this case, the judge admonished the Plaintiffs for doing so. "To say that Plaintiffs' 116-page Complaint, replete with 310 footnotes, is prolix would be a gross understatement." Why did he admonish the Plaintiffs? Because, as I have stated before, evidence doesn't belong in an initial pleading nor was it considered in this case.

    Second case, Trump v. Biden This hearing was on a brief filed on four issues. The first issue challenged the legality of "indefinitely confined" ballots. This challenge was shot down because those ballots fell within the scope of Wisconsin statutory law. Even though the majority ruled against the Plaintiffs in this issue, the court stated that there was a problem with how it was being conducted and concluded that this would no doubt be an issue for future elections. The remaining 3 issues were, were also on the legalities of, in-person absentee ballots, the claim that absentee ballot certifications improperly added witness information and therefore should be discounted, and the legality of drop boxes. All three of these issues were dismissed on the legal principle of laches. This legal principle is based on the concept that, "Equity aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights." In other words, the courts hid behind the concept that this case was not timely filed (the impropriety of this is discussed in the dissenting opinions). The court decided that 44 days after the election was too late to file the case.

    This case was on the legality of the Wisconsin laws, not on the evidence of voter fraud. Once again, this cases did not discuss evidence of voter fraud or conduct an evidentiary hearing.

    Third case, Trump v. Wis. Elections Comm'n Once again, this is a case based on procedures and legalities of Wisconsin election law with no mention of the evidence of voter fraud. None. And once again, the court hid behind the principle of laches. "We reach this conclusion in no small part because of the President's delay in bringing the challenges to Wisconsin law that provide the foundation for the alleged constitutional violation. Even apart from the delay, the claims fail under the Electors Clause." ". . .all we need to say is that, even on a broad reading of the Electors Clause, Wisconsin lawfully appointed its electors in the manner directed by its Legislature."

    This case was based on the structure and scheme under which Wisconsin elections are conducted. No mention of the evidence of voter fraud. Zero.

    With regard to the Nevada case, the evidence was discounted as not meeting the legal standard to be admitted as evidence. It was judged as inadmissible by legal definition - PROCEDURAL GROUNDS -not whether or not it was true or untrue.

    120. As reflected herein, the Court finds that the expert testimony provided by the Contestants was of little to no value. The Court did not exclude consideration of this evidence, which it could have, but gave it very little weight.

    Yet, that's exactly what the Court did as evidenced by the repeated use of the phrase, "The record does not support. . ." All affiants' testimony was discounted as heresay and not allowed due to the inability to cross-examine the witnesses (aka procedural grounds), and then the Court ruled that no evidence existed (by repeatedly stating that, "The record does not support. . ."). How convenient. However, this could have been avoided by making the affiants available for deposition. By doing this, the affiants could be cross examined and their testimony direct and thus, not heresay.

    I did spot one very serious blunder on behalf of the Plaintiffs in this case. The judge gave them until November 25 to return a witness list for depositions and list of evidence. Considering that the case was filed on November 17, at the very least, this was not much time. The deposition list wasn't filed until November 27. Judges really frown on those who do not meet their deadlines. This is the time and place for the expert testimony that Rudy Guilliani put forth in the Senate hearings and it should have been used here. It wasn't. I believe this case would have had a very different outcome if that had been done. Due to the serious blunders in this case, one can easily conclude that this case looks like the work of a legal amateur. However, the point is that once again the ruling was against the Plaintiffs on procedural grounds, not the merits of the evidence.

    Need I go on?
    I did read them and understand the procedural grounds as well as decisions based on merit. This is what I do for a living. Your own response acknowledges that these were not all tossed out of court without the court addressing the evidence or lack thereof in the bogus claims. Even when a court grants summary judgment on a technicality they often address the merits of the claim (as they did in most of these frivolous claims). Doctrine of latches means that the President should have raised these claims challenging absentee voting laws prior to the vote. Absentee voting laws were in place prior to November 3rd, and Trump was vocal in his complaint about mail in voting (because he knew he was tanking in the polls). He had every opportunity to challenge those laws prior to the vote, and he did in PA, but lost. But not all the claims were denied based on procedural grounds. These cases were laughed out of court because they lack solid evidence of fraud. Some of the judges who threw out these cases were Trump appointees, so to say that the judiciary was somehow biased against Trump is BS. Voter fraud did not occur. Trump lost because he did not get as many votes as Biden, and your claims that none of the courts that threw out these cases considered the merits if FALSE.

    Trump v. Wisconsin's Elections Commission, 983 F.3d 919 (7th Cir. 2020) AND I QUOTE ""After an evidentiary hearing, the district court rejected the President's claims on the merits and entered judgment for the Commission and other defendants. The Electors Clause, the court determined, addressed the "Manner"—the "approach, form, method, or mode"—by which Wisconsin appointed its electors. For Wisconsin, that meant only by "general ballot at the general election," WIS. STAT. § 8.25(1), with the court further observing that any mistakes in administering the election did not change that the electors were appointed by general " e
    Trump v. Biden, 394 Wis. 2d 629 (Wisconsin Supreme Court 2020) Also finding the Trump campaigns claims meritless as well as barred under procedural grounds.
    Bowyer v. Ducey, (District of Arizona 12 9, 2020) the court held that the request to disenfranchise Arizona voters "should be accompanied by clear and conclusive facts to support the alleged 'egregious range of conduct in Maricopa County and other Arizona counties...Yet the Complaint's allegations are sorely wanting of relevant or reliable evidence." The Court obviously considered the evidence, or in this case the lack thereof.
    Law v. Whitmer, 477 P.3d 1124 (Nev. 2020)

  15. #465
    Registered User
    twisted's Avatar


    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    everywhere
    Posts
    12,291

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,897
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    953
    Thanked in
    686 Posts
    Rep Points
    2146571834

    Quote Originally Posted by GJ503 View Post
    I did read them and understand the procedural grounds as well as decisions based on merit. This is what I do for a living. Your own response acknowledges that these were not all tossed out of court without the court addressing the evidence or lack thereof in the bogus claims. Even when a court grants summary judgment on a technicality they often address the merits of the claim (as they did in most of these frivolous claims). Doctrine of latches means that the President should have raised these claims challenging absentee voting laws prior to the vote. Absentee voting laws were in place prior to November 3rd, and Trump was vocal in his complaint about mail in voting (because he knew he was tanking in the polls). He had every opportunity to challenge those laws prior to the vote, and he did in PA, but lost. But not all the claims were denied based on procedural grounds. These cases were laughed out of court because they lack solid evidence of fraud. Some of the judges who threw out these cases were Trump appointees, so to say that the judiciary was somehow biased against Trump is BS. Voter fraud did not occur. Trump lost because he did not get as many votes as Biden, and your claims that none of the courts that threw out these cases considered the merits if FALSE.

    Trump v. Wisconsin's Elections Commission, 983 F.3d 919 (7th Cir. 2020) AND I QUOTE ""After an evidentiary hearing, the district court rejected the President's claims on the merits and entered judgment for the Commission and other defendants. The Electors Clause, the court determined, addressed the "Manner"—the "approach, form, method, or mode"—by which Wisconsin appointed its electors. For Wisconsin, that meant only by "general ballot at the general election," WIS. STAT. § 8.25(1), with the court further observing that any mistakes in administering the election did not change that the electors were appointed by general " e
    Trump v. Biden, 394 Wis. 2d 629 (Wisconsin Supreme Court 2020) Also finding the Trump campaigns claims meritless as well as barred under procedural grounds.
    Bowyer v. Ducey, (District of Arizona 12 9, 2020) the court held that the request to disenfranchise Arizona voters "should be accompanied by clear and conclusive facts to support the alleged 'egregious range of conduct in Maricopa County and other Arizona counties...Yet the Complaint's allegations are sorely wanting of relevant or reliable evidence." The Court obviously considered the evidence, or in this case the lack thereof.
    Law v. Whitmer, 477 P.3d 1124 (Nev. 2020)
    Always good to see democraps still swinging away .....you get the democrap libtard gold star ....hey maybe biden will stop to see and sniff your hair🤫

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-26-2021, 03:55 AM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-22-2021, 09:42 AM
  3. 🔥🔥Ignite your lifts (ultimate pumps) TREN-BASE🔥🔥
    By Vision in forum Purity Source Labs
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 10-09-2020, 12:12 PM
  4. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-16-2018, 06:27 AM
  5. 🔥🔥Ignite your lifts (ultimate pumps) TREN-BASE🔥🔥
    By Vision in forum Sponsor Sales and Promos
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-22-2018, 03:29 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Copyright© 2012-2021 Anabolic Steroid Discussion Forums